This article was downloaded by: [146.83.207.

4]
On: 21 March 2013, At: 14:22
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
Littering in protected areas: a
conservation and management
challenge a case study from the
Autonomous Region of Madrid, Spain
David Rodrguez-Rodrguez
a
a
Institute of Economics, Geography and Demography, Spanish
National Research Council (IEGD-CSIC), Albasanz, 26-28, Madrid,
28037, Spain
Version of record first published: 24 Jan 2012.
To cite this article: David Rodrguez-Rodrguez (2012): Littering in protected areas: a conservation
and management challenge a case study from the Autonomous Region of Madrid, Spain, Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 20:7, 1011-1024
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.651221
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Vol. 20, No. 7, September 2012, 10111024
Littering in protected areas: a conservation and management challenge
a case study from the Autonomous Region of Madrid, Spain
David Rodrguez-Rodrguez

Institute of Economics, Geography and Demography, Spanish National Research Council

(IEGD-CSIC), Albasanz, 26-28, Madrid 28037, Spain
(Received 31 July 2011; nal version received 9 December 2011)
This paper examines issues surrounding littering in protected areas (PAs), one of the most
ubiquitous and conspicuous impacts of tourism activity. In addition to obvious visual,
landscape-affecting impacts, litter may have hazardous consequences for biodiversity
and humans. In order to precisely assess littering in a densely populated region with high
levels of visitation to natural and protected areas, we counted, measured and classied
all types of non-organic litter covering an area of 1 cm
2
or more found on the ground
in zones intensively used by visitors (picnic areas and paths) within the 10 PAs of the
Autonomous Region of Madrid. On average, 11.65 m
2
/ha of litter were recorded in
those zones. Strict visitor management measures greatly reduced that gure. Over 75%
of all litter was paper and cardboard, and plastic; 88% of litter coverage was by large
pieces over 25 cm
2
in size. We tested the hypothesis that the amount of waste found on
paths is correlated with the distance to the entrance to a PA, but no general model tted
actual litter distribution patterns, although empirical results backed the hypothesis for
most cases. Arange of waste management strategies are explored and litter management
measures suggested for problematic PAs.
Keywords: visitor impact; littering; protected areas; management; Autonomous Region
of Madrid; zones intensively used by visitors
Introduction
Tourism in protected areas: a management challenge
Tourism in natural and protected areas (PAs) has been increasing rapidly across the world
(Buckley, Weaver, & Pickering, 2003; Farrell & Marion, 2001; Mulero, 2002). This fast-
growing public use has overwhelmed the carrying capacities and tourism infrastructures of
some PAs (Corraliza, Garca-Navarro, & Valero, 2002; Tisdell, 2001). Numerous manage-
ment and conservation problems have arisen, especially in the most popular areas (Farrell,
2002; Hunter & Green, 1995; Kaseva & Moirana, 2010; Leung & Marion, 1999)
Visitor impacts on natural and protected areas are diverse and serious (Tisdell, 2001). Di-
rect impacts include: increasing use of resources; soil trampling and compacting; vegetation
removal; animal disturbance; soil erosion; littering; water pollution; noise making; introduc-
tion of alien species and varieties; damage to geological features, cultural sites, vegetation
or public use infrastructure; increased re risk; air pollution from transportation; animal
road kills; and changes in wildlife behavioural patterns due to human habituation (Chape,
Spalding, & Jenkins, 2008; Farrell, 2002; Hunter & Green, 1995; Kaseva & Moirana, 2010;

Email: david.rodriguez@csic.es
ISSN 0966-9582 print / ISSN 1747-7646 online
C
2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.651221
http://www.tandfonline.com
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

1012 D. Rodrguez-Rodrguez
Liddle, 1997). Due to the potential cumulative effects of these impacts and the sensitivity
of many natural areas, it is vital for the conservation of natural resources that these impacts
are assessed and anticipated (Newsome, Moore & Dowling, 2002). Nevertheless, many
of them have received relatively little research attention, despite their ecological signi-
cance and the needs of PA managers for visitor impact monitoring and prediction (Buckley
et al., 2003; Farrell & Marion, 2001). Most research has focused on the most conspicuous
impacts, such as vegetation damage, soil trampling, waste disposal or disturbance to avian
fauna (Buckley et al., 2003, Hunter & Green, 1995). New quick, low-cost methodologies
for complete visitor impact assessment and mapping remain a management need (Liddle,
1997).
Heavily visited PAs can be deemed contested sites where a diversity of visitors has
different ideas and needs about the use of the place (Mc Kercher & Weber, 2008). In those
places, visitor impacts may also result in a reduced quality of recreational experiences and
in conicts among visitors (Brown, Ham, & Hughes, 2010; Farrell, 2002; Leung & Marion,
1999).
Littering: an undesirable and ever-present impact of tourism in PAs
Littering is one of the most ubiquitous and conspicuous impacts of tourism in PAs. The
impacts of littering in the most visited zones are many and serious (Brown et al., 2010;
Kaseva & Moirana, 2010). In addition to detracting from the visual quality of an area, litter
may also act as a hazardous source of pollution to wildlife (often endangered), soil, water
and humans, depending on the toxicity and the environment of the disposed litter (Brown
et al., 2010; Buckley et al., 2003). Despite the importance of littering for management,
for the social perception of PAs and for the conservation of PAs (Diego & Garca-Codron,
2006), little specic research on the topic has been developed.
Conservation and management problems posed by visitor impacts to PAs, such as those
arising from littering, tend to concentrate in the most visited places, such as picnic areas
or paths (Farrell & Marion, 2001), as the amount of litter found is related to the number
of visitors (Kaseva & Moirana, 2010). Due to the fact that many visitors to PAs are quite
sedentary (G omez-Lim on, 2002; G omez-Lim on, M ugica, Medina, & De Lucio, 1994), it
may be thought that litter density along paths inside PAs would decrease with distance from
the entrances to PAs.
The context of the PAs of the Autonomous Region of Madrid
A total of 6.5 million people live in the ARM, within an area of 8021 km
2
(Instituto
Nacional de Estadstica [INE], 2011). While containing Spains capital city and nine other
cities over 100,000 inhabitants, it also has large tracts of unspoilt countryside and a rich
cultural and biological heritage (Aramburu, Escribano, Ramos, & Rubio, 2003; De Miguel
& Daz-Pineda, 2003; Vacas, 2006).
The process of progressive overcrowding by visitors is not new to the 10 PAs of the
Autonomous Region of Madrid (ARM) in Spain, especially to the best-known ones such
as Pe nalara Natural Park, Pinar de Abantos y Zona de la Herrera Picturesque Landscape
and Cuenca Alta del Manzanares Regional Park (Barrado, 1999; G omez-Lim on, M ugica,
Mu noz, & De Lucio, 1996; Rodrguez-Rodrguez, 2009).
Even in 1993, an estimated 2,800,000 people visited picnic areas inside the regions PAs
(G omez-Lim on et al., 1996). This number continues to grow. Pressures from mass tourism
and visitation have become so important in this densely populated region that tourism
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1013
has been identied as the main current threat to the conservation of its PAs (Rodrguez-
Rodrguez, 2008). The inux of visitors to the PAs in the region is seasonal. The PAs located
in the dry south-east receive the bulk of visitors in spring time (May), whereas those in the
mountainous north-west are most visited in summer time (July) (G omez-Lim on et al., 1996).
Despite the serious environmental problems caused by high visitor numbers (Barrado, 1999;
G omez-Lim on & Garca-Avil es, 1992; G omez-Lim on et al., 1996; Rodrguez-Rodrguez,
2008), public use is neither assessed nor regulated sufciently. Only one of the 10 regions
PAs has an accurate register of visitor gures due to the existence of a daily visitor quota:
the National Site of Natural Interest of Hayedo de Montejo de la Sierra. There is also no
clear policy on litter management inside the PAs. In some, notably in the parks, some public
use infrastructure, such as litter bins or interpretive panels informing visitors about the PA,
is in place, although such bins/panels are not present in every picnic area or PA entrance
and very few panels address littering specically. In these PAs, cleaning patrols operate
on an alternating basis (not daily), cleaning and tidying up the picnic areas (including
vegetation pruning). Cuenca Alta del Manzanares Regional Park operates a trash-in/trash-
out policy in the most popular area of the Park (access to Canto Cochino), whereby the
parks staff located at the main entrance inform visitors of the need to take out their litter
and offer visitors a rubbish bag to put it in, as in some popular PAs elsewhere in the world
(Kaseva & Moirana, 2010). PAs other than parks generally lack any sort of public use
infrastructure or regular staff to collect litter or to inform visitors to take out their own
rubbish.
Most visitors to the regions PAs come from urban centres where litter-collecting fa-
cilities are usually in place and they are, therefore, less aware of the impacts of littering
in natural areas, to which they often are outsiders (Brown et al., 2010; Mc Kercher &
Weber, 2008). However, education, which is seen as an effective means to raise visitors
awareness of their own impacts on visited places and to modify their behaviour (Brown et
al., 2010), is not regularly used as a management tool to prevent littering in the PAs of the
ARM.
The last studies of the impacts of public use in the PAs of the ARM that included some
assessment of littering were conducted over 15 years ago (G omez-Lim on & Garca-Avil es,
1992; G omez-Lim on et al., 1996). The huge urban and demographic changes experienced
by the region since then (De Miguel & Daz-Pineda, 2003; Naredo & Fras, 2005) have
posed additional pressures for its PAs (Rodrguez-Rodrguez, 2008). There is an urgent
need for more effective management and conservation and to make that process work,
knowledge of the amount, distribution and types of litter found on the ground in the most
visited zones inside the PAs will signicantly enhance the managers capacity to deal with
this challenge.
Aims of the study
This study had three main aims. The rst was measuring, classifying and comparing the
amount and types of litter found in zones with intensive visitor use in the PAs of the
ARM to assess the current impact of this variable closely linked to tourism. The sec-
ond aim was testing the hypothesis that the density of litter found on paths was nega-
tively correlated with the distance to the entry points to PAs. The last aim was to explore
some litter management strategies and measures to enhance the conservation state of the
regions PAs.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

1014 D. Rodrguez-Rodrguez
Table 1. Protected areas of the Autonomous Region of Madrid where the survey was conducted,
category, area, type of surveyed zone, number of surveyed zones, and number of times each zone
was surveyed.
Protected area Location Category
Hectares
(ha)
Type of
surveyed
zone
Number of
surveyed
zones
Times
surveyed
Cuenca Alta NW Regional park 52,796 Picnic area 8 1
Sureste SE Regional park 31,550 Picnic area 9 (1
non-valid)
1
Guadarrama SE Regional park 22,116 Picnic area 4 1
Pe nalara NW Natural park 11,530 Picnic area 2 1
Abantos y Herrera NW Picturesque
landscape
1538 Picnic area 5 (1
non-valid)
1
Regajal-Ontgola SE Nature reserve 629 Path 1 2
Hayedo Montejo NW Natural site of
national
interest
250 Path 1 1
Pe na del Arcipreste NW Natural
monument of
national
interest
3 Path 1 2
Laguna de San Juan SE Fauna refuge 47 Path 1 2
Soto Henares SE Preventive
protection
regime
332 Path 1 2
Materials and methods
We selected paths and picnic areas within the 10 PAs of the ARM as the zones most
intensively used by visitors to those PAs (see Table 1) (Farrell & Marion, 2001; G omez-
Lim on et al., 1996; Kaseva & Moirana, 2010). We made a census of the litter found on the
ground in these zones. We divided the 10 PAs into two geographical groups (SE, NW) and
temporally distributed the census during two non-consecutive months in 2009 according to
the annual maximum inux of visitors reported to each group of PAs (G omez-Lim on et al.,
1994) (Figure 1):
May for the SE PAs: Sureste Regional Park, Laguna de San Juan Fauna Refuge, El
Regajal-Mar de Ontgola Nature Reserve, Preventive Protection Regime of Soto del
Henares and Guadarrama Regional Park (17 zones); and
July for the NW PAs: Pe nalara Natural Park, Cuenca Alta del Manzanares Regional
Park, Natural Site of National Interest of Hayedo de Montejo, Natural Monument of
National Interest of Pe na del Arcipreste de Hita and Pinar de Abantos y Zona de La
Herrera Picturesque Landscape (17 zones).
For the purpose of this study, we used consistently the word litter to refer to all kinds
of waste disposed by visitors into PAs. The term includes wastes commonly found in these
PAs such as hunting ammunition, old tyres, rubble, etc. Organic waste was not considered
as litter in this study because of its restricted amount, biodegradable nature and limited
polluting effects.
We made the censuses early on weekday mornings, thus nding the zones as they were
left by visitors from the previous days and usually before cleaning patrols reached them.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1015
Figure 1. Location of the surveyed zones within the protected areas of the Autonomous Region of
Madrid.
Source: The author.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

1016 D. Rodrguez-Rodrguez
As cleaning patrols do not operate on a daily basis or during the weekends, we hoped to
reect the worst possible litter situation in each PA (Farrell & Marion, 2001). The censuses
were not performed on weekends because the high number of visitors in the biggest and
most popular zones would have severely hampered data collection. Censuses performed
on Mondays therefore usually reect the worst possible situation. Thus, the census dates
were distributed so that at least one randomly chosen zone from each PA was surveyed on
a Monday morning (except for Hayedo de Montejo).
We selected all the zones intensively used by visitors (picnic areas and paths) within the
10 PAs as the target manageable zones where the largest quantity of litter was likely to be
found. Big PAs (over 1000 ha) are the only ones with picnic areas inside their boundaries,
where most visitors tend to concentrate (Barrado, 1999). In addition, big PAs have several
entrance points and a huge number of paths inside them, not all of them clearly identied,
which makes it impossible to perform a census on all paths or even appropriately count
and sample them. In contrast, small PAs (under 1000 ha) have few but identiable entrance
points and paths where most visitors concentrate, as no picnic areas are available. In both
cases, for picnic areas and paths, we noted down the total surveyed area (of each picnic
area or path), the type of litter found on the ground and its estimated area, and performed
the census according to the physical characteristics of both types of zones:
(1) In big PAs (over 1000 ha, ve PAs): we visually estimated the area (cm
2
) covered
by different types of litter found inside picnic areas (n = 28; the census could not
be performed in two picnic areas due to the presence of free cattle). We surveyed
the total area covered by each picnic area through regular 3-m parallel transects and
noted down every litter item equal to or over 1 cm
2
found. We annotated the GPS
coordinates of the picnic areas corners to calculate their area using GIS software
(Arc-GIS). Picnic areas inside each PA were surveyed consecutively on different
weekdays.
(2) In small PAs (under 1000 ha, ve PAs): we visually estimated litter equal to or over
1 cm
2
found along paths starting from the main entrance(s) to the PA and nishing
1000 m inside the PA (or before, if the path was shorter). We noted the type of litter,
its quantity, its estimated area (cm
2
) and the distance from the starting point of the
path where each item was found using a 10-m recording pedometer. We surveyed
the area comprised by the paths width and a 1-m band along each side of the path
as the most likely zone to nd litter due to public use. To calculate the surveyed
area, we considered the average width of the paths, together with the total 2-m
side band, and their length. Paths lengths ranged from 480 to 1160 m. One path
per small PA was surveyed. Average litter quantity from two transects per PA was
taken. Both censuses were made on different non-consecutive weekdays, differing
over 15 days for the same path to reect a different range of situations within the
time frame of the study. For Hayedo de Montejo, it was assumed that the quantity
of litter found would be equal in any day, as the entrance is controlled and visit is
guided at all times, so only one transect was done. We excluded Hayedo de Montejo
(n =1) from most statistical analyses due to the fact that litter dynamics are totally
different in this PA as a result of this strict access control.
In the small PAs, we tested the initial hypothesis that states that the amount of litter,
measured by its covered area on the ground, should be higher in places with easy accessibil-
ity, such as the entrances to PAs and their surroundings, than in other places far away from
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1017
Table 2. Standard area of most common litter completely extended (cm
2
).
Common waste Measures Area (cm
2
)
Plastic bag 28 cm 38 cm 1064
Plastic bottle 5 L 30 cm 15 cm 450
Plastic bottle 2 L 34 cm 9 cm 306
Plastic bottle 1.5 L 32 cm 8 cm 256
Plastic bottle 1 L 25 cm 7.5 cm 187.5
Plastic bottle 0.5 L 22 cm 6 cm 132
Glass bottle 0.25 L 18 cm 5 cm 90
Refreshment can 0.33 L 11 cm 6 cm 66
Cigarette packet 9 cm 5.5 cm 49.5
Brick 0.2 L 12 cm 4.5 cm 54
Brick 1 L 18 cm 10 cm 180
Food can 6.5 cm 6.5 cm 42.25
Paper tissue 20.5 cm 20.5 cm 420.25
Cigarette butt 2.5 cm 1 cm 2.5
Hunting ammunition 6 cm 2 cm 12
Cork 4 cm 2 cm 8
them. We expected that the amount of litter would decrease from the entrance to the PA and
the rst meters of the paths onwards inside the PA. We calculated the average accumulated
percentage of litter per path length using 10-m intervals in order to visually and statisti-
cally analyze litter spatial distribution and to consider the appropriateness of developing
a litter distribution model. All surveys were done by the author, which reduced variation
related to procedure and litter area estimation. The area covered by litter on the ground was
calculated assuming each item covered the maximum possible area (i.e. intact, completely
extended litter). To do so, one model item per type of litter considered was selected from
home rubbish and measured under controlled conditions. We used the standard area values
provided in Table 2 for each of the most common types of litter found on the ground. The
classication of litter was made according to categories shown in Table 3. We performed
one-way ANOVAs (analyses of variance) and linear regression analyses at 1 = 0.95
using SPSS software for data processing and analysis.
Table 3. Categories of litter considered.
Type of litter Categories
Paper and cardboard 1
Plastic (including aluminium paper) 2
Cartons 3
Metal 4
Glass 5
Diverse non-hazardous (rubble, fabric, pottery, footwear, cork and others) 6
Toxic and hazardous (hunting ammunition, oil and detergent containers, batteries,
cigarette butts and others)
7
Sand, dead leaves, dead wood, organic waste Not
included
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

1018 D. Rodrguez-Rodrguez
Table 4. Surveyed area and absolute and relative litter area found in large and small protected areas
of the Autonomous Region of Madrid.
Large protected areas Cuenca Alta Sureste Guadarrama Pe nalara
Abantos y
Herrera
Surveyed area (m
2
) 104,621.08 103,043.22 70,390.60 24,255.47 32,497.01
Absolute average litter
area (m
2
)
31.22 132.66 33.62 4.22 8.31
Relative average litter
area (m
2
waste/ha
surveyed area)
2.98 12.87 4.78 1.74 2.56
Number of picnic areas
surveyed (valid)
8 8 4 2 4
Regajal- Hayedo Pe na Laguna Soto
Small protected areas Ontgola Montejo Arcipreste San Juan Henares
Average surveyed area
(m
2
)
2831.50 4000.00 5265.00 2575.00 5500.00
Litter area (m
2
):
Transect 1
3.16 0.01 1.26 Non-valid 60.41
Litter area (m
2
):
Transect 2
6.30 1.45 0.52 31.61
Absolute average litter
area (m
2
)
4.73 0.01 1.35 0.52 46.01
Relative average litter
area (m
2
litter/ha
surveyed area)
16.71 0.01 2.57 2.02 83.66
Results
In total, 11.65 m
2
/ha of litter were recorded on average in zones intensively used by visitors
inside the PAs of the ARM(95%condence interval, CI
95%
=4.1719.12, n =33, excluding
Hayedo Montejo, Table 4). For picnic areas inside the ve large PAs, the value was 6.78
m
2
/ha (CI
95%
= 3.679.89, Table 5). However, no signicant differences were found in
the relative amount of litter found (Ln) between paths (n = 8) and picnic areas (n = 26)
(p = 0.058, for all PAs, and p = 0.703 without Soto Henares).
There were signicant differences in the relative litter area found among PAs
(p = 0.001) (Ln cm
2
litter/m
2
surveyed area). Inter-pairs contrasts showed an increasing
gradient of the amount of litter found for three groups of PAs:
(1) Laguna San Juan, Pe nalara, Cuenca Alta, Pe na Arcipreste, Abantos y Herrera and
Guadarrama
(2) Sureste and Regajal-Ontgola
(3) Soto Henares
The proportion of the different types of litter found on each PA is shown in Table 6.
The distribution of litter by size is shown in Table 7.
Not considering Hayedo de Montejo, average small-sized litter area (under or equal
to 25 cm
2
) in all the remaining free-access PAs accounted for 11.70% of the total litter
area (CI
95%
= 7.3416.07) and average big-sized litter area (over 25 cm
2
) was 88.30%
of the total litter area (CI
95%
= 83.9392.66). The area covered by small litter is lineally
independent from the area covered by big litter in the zones intensively used by visitors
inside PAs (p = 0.705; R
2
= 0.005).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1019
Table 5. Absolute and relative litter area per surveyed picnic area.
Absolute litter Picnic area Relative litter
Protected area Picnic area area (cm
2
) (m
2
) area (cm
2
/m
2
)
Cuenca Alta Arroyo Mediano 12,688.75 6704.96 1.89
Las Vueltas 34,292.25 5786.13 5.93
Puente de Madrid 2450.25 6171.19 0.40
Las Dehesas 30,929.25 26,784.07 1.15
La Cabilda 19,767.75 14,023.53 1.41
Canto Cochino 64,703.00 14,750.28 4.39
El Berzalejo 107,541.50 18,196.63 5.91
Chopera del Samburiel 39,819.25 12,204.31 3.26
Sureste Las Islillas 71,341.75 12,539.43 5.69
Laguna del Campillo 34,824.00 2112.44 16.49
Soto Bayona 52,062.25 15,358.85 3.39
El Puente 802,989.25 36,577.72 21.95
Arroyo Palomero 104,696.75 11,861.65 8.83
Pinar Lagunas 121,550.00 18,676.46 6.51
Fuente del Valle 120,878.75 3430.92 35.23
Paseo Abujeta 18,256.50 2485.75 7.34
El Carrascal Census not Census not Census not
possible possible possible
Guadarrama Puente del Retamar 28,380.50 11,437.61 2.48
Parque de San Isidro 51,514.50 9482.93 5.43
El Sotillo 111,825.25 27,138.55 4.12
Picnic de Batres 144,526.25 22,331.51 6.47
Pe nalara Las Presillas 39,908.50 23,396.52 1.71
La Isla 2245.50 858.95 2.61
Abantos y Herrera Silla de Felipe II 21,602.25 2817.23 7.67
Fuente Arenitas 31,258.00 2254.84 13.86
La Penosilla 9150.50 9361.82 0.98
El Tomillar 21,089.25 18,063.13 1.17
Los Llanillos Census not Census not Census not
possible possible possible
Table 6. Absolute proportion of different types of litter found in different protected areas of the
Autonomous Region of Madrid, according to the litter categories shown in Table 3: 1 = paper &
cardboard, 2 = plastic, 3 = cartons, 4 = metal, 5 = glass, 6 = diverse non-hazardous and 7 = toxic
and hazardous.
Litter type
Protected area 1 (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5 (%) 6 (%) 7 (%) Total (%)
Cuenca Alta 51.32 30.38 0.28 1.12 0.53 14.31 2.05 100
Sureste 42.91 28.54 0.32 0.49 0.62 26.20 0.91 100
Guadarrama 31.24 42.24 0.17 0.26 0.75 24.64 0.69 100
Pe nalara 43.06 51.42 0.51 1.10 0.00 0.23 3.68

100
Abantos y Herrera 63.05 33.07 0.06 0.40 0.62 1.23 1.57 100
Regajal- Ontgola 26.25 17.66 0.13 0.54 0.26 55.11 0.05 100
Hayedo Montejo 25.86 74.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100
Pe na Arcipreste 56.67 35.16 1.48 5.36 1.33 0.00 0.01 100
Laguna San Juan 81.99 5.18 0.00 1.27 0.00 11.52 0.05 100
Soto Henares 7.24 24.45 0.29 0.59 0.00 66.40 1.03 100
Total average 44.48 31.16 0.47 1.16 0.69 20,58 1.27 100

All were cigarette butts.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

1020 D. Rodrguez-Rodrguez
Table 7. Proportion of small and large litter in different protected areas of the Autonomous Region
of Madrid.
Litter size (%)
Protected area Small (25 cm
2
) Large (>25 cm
2
)
Cuenca Alta 19.53 80.47
Sureste 6.77 93.23
Guadarrama 9.46 90.54
Pe nalara 19.82 80.18
Abantos 19.92 80.08
Regajal-Mar de Ontgola 2.08 97.92
Hayedo de Montejo

100 0
Pe na del Arcipreste 2.27 97.73
Laguna de San Juan 2.10 97.90
Soto del Henares 0.18 99.82
Average 11.70 88.30

Strict visitor control in place.

A model could not be tted to explain the spatial distribution of litter along the paths
due to the different distribution patterns of litter on each path (Figure 2). Thus, the initial
hypothesis that the amount of litter diminishes with the distance to the entrances to PAs
could not be statistically conrmed. However, for the paths examined and regardless of
their length, empirical results seemed to back the hypothesis: the absolute area covered
by litter found in the rst third of each paths length ranged between 46.70% and 89.96%
of the total litter area on the paths, with an average of 70.47%, clearly over the 33.33%
expected from regular disposal. For the second third of each path, the area covered by litter
ranged between 4.85% and 45.21%, with an average of 17.09%, notably under the expected
33.33%. Finally, the area covered by litter on the last third ranged between 27.00% and
1.38% of the total, with an average of 12.44%, remarkably under the 33.33% expected from
regular disposal.
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of the area covered by litter along paths inside small protected areas
of the Autonomous Region of Madrid. (Color gure available online.)
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1021
Discussion
The amount of litter found on zones intensively used by visitors to the PAs was high,
taking into account that this litter was found in the wildest and most important areas
for nature conservation of the region. Littering in these PAs is an even more serious issue,
taking into account that organic waste was not considered in this study, and that further
litter is likely to be located outside the surveyed area or remained unnoticed due to visitors
hiding their litter (Kaseva & Moirana, 2010). The urban origin of most visitors, their
decient environmental consciousness and the lack of specic facilities in place regarding
littering may explain the large amount of litter found (Brown et al., 2010; Chang, 2010;
Mc Kercher & Weber, 2008). Nevertheless, some uncertainty should be considered when
interpreting the results, mainly regarding the period when the survey was conducted and
the census procedure (visual counting and average paths area measurement and litter size
estimation).
By comparing the area covered by litter on the ground related to the total surveyed area,
and taking into account the assumptions of this study, it cannot be said that picnic areas were
cleaner than paths, the exception being Soto del Henares. The fact that the inux of visitors
to picnic areas may be higher than to paths and that the activities performed in picnic areas
are usually more sedentary than on paths (G omez-Lim on, 2002; G omez-Lim on et al., 1994;
G omez-Lim on et al., 1996; M ugica, 1994) may result in picnic areas being more prone to
the accumulation of litter. However, cleaning patrols operate more frequently in picnic areas
than along paths, and picnic areas often have some facilities for environmental information
and/or litter collection in place, which is almost completely lacking on paths. Therefore,
current litter management measures in picnic areas seem not to be efcient enough to
make a difference compared to the current no-management policy that occurs on the
paths.
The biggest amount of litter by far was found in Soto del Henares. This may be a
consequence of its lack of management (it also lacks all kinds of visitors infrastructure) as
well as of its peri-urban nature (Rodrguez-Rodrguez, 2008). Litter management measures
are urgently needed in this PA, as there we found both the highest quantity of litter per
surveyed area and the highest amount of toxic and hazardous litter per surveyed area,
with a big difference from the other PAs. The bad state of Sureste Regional Park and
of El Regajal-Mar de Ontgola Nature Reserve (a small PA of the highest conservation
value in the region) is also remarkable. Both suffer from lack of effective visitor and litter
management, in spite of the fact that both of them had a director when the study was
done. They appear both dirty and neglected. In addition to the high quantity of litter in
El Regajal-Mar de Ontgola, all visitor infrastructures (information panels and a fauna
observation tower) are useless for their public use duties: they are either vandalised or
destroyed. It is likely that proper installation and maintenance of preventive infrastructure
such as litter bins or explanatory panels at sensible points in these PAs (entrance, public use
zones, etc.) would improve visitors environmental awareness and performance inside them
and thus help reduce the amount of litter disposed (Brown et al., 2010; Hunter & Green,
1995).
There is an inverse relationship between measures controlling visitor access to a PA
and the amount of litter found inside it (G omez-Lim on et al., 1996; Kaseva & Moirana,
2010). The fact that Hayedo de Montejo, where the entrance is controlled and visits are
guided and restricted to small groups at all times, was the cleanest PA by far conrms
that direct approaches to visitor management such as visitor quotas, guided visits, entrance
fees or access restriction to sensitive zones (Rodrguez-Rodrguez, 2009) are effective in
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

1022 D. Rodrguez-Rodrguez
addressing inappropriate visitor behaviour (Chang, 2010). However, the fact that most
visitors are unaware of their own impacts when visiting natural areas (Hillery, Nancarrow,
Grifn, & Syme 2001) reveals a key gap related to environmental education.
The main types of litter found were paper and cardboard and plastic, accounting for
over 75% of the total waste area. Similar proportions were obtained by Kaseva & Moirana
(2010) in Mount Kilimanjaro National Park.
It is likely that littering on paths distributes randomly or according to a set of variables
difcult to identify, measure and model, such as the existence of hidden places for littering,
such as bends or places with dense vegetation (Kaseva &Moirana, 2010). It was empirically
noticed that places below or around public use infrastructure (benches, swings, tables, etc.)
had a bigger area covered by litter than places further away from them, although specic
studies conrming that hypothesis should be done. Even though a model explaining the
spatial distribution of litter on paths could not be found, an interesting empirical nding
was made: in all the paths considered and despite their limited length, the biggest area
covered by litter was found on the rst third of each path. This nding may have interesting
applications for the management of litter in the PAs in the region, for instance, regarding
the installation of litter infrastructure such as litter bins, containers or informative panels.
These would be more useful when located within the rst few meters of the paths and
mainly at the entrances to the paths, as an average of 38.89% (48.61% not considering
Hayedo de Montejo) of the total litter area found in the surveyed paths was found within
the rst 10 m of the entrance to the PA.
Conclusions
Littering is a serious and widespread impact of visitation to the PAs of the ARM, affecting
their visual attraction and conservation status.
All the regions PAs, except one, are notably affected by littering and three of them
(all located in the south-east) are heavily affected. The variables explaining the causes of
littering and the distribution of litter in natural areas could not be clearly identied and,
as a result, this topic remains a scientic and management issue. In spite of this lack of
knowledge, some public use management measures could be taken in the most problematic
PAs. These measures need not necessarily include the prohibition or regulation of access (as
happens in the cleanest PA, Hayedo de Montejo), but may comprise some other indirect
measures instead such as educational briengs or chats prior to the entrance to the PAs
and/or the installation and proper maintenance of preventive infrastructure such as litter
bins or explanatory panels at sensible points (entrances, viewpoints, picnic areas, other
recreation areas, etc.) (Chang, 2010). The trash-in/trash-out scheme seems a promising
system to manage littering, provided that an extensive educational programme explaining
it to visitors is implemented previously (Kaseva & Moirana, 2010).
The preventive approach to managing littering in PAs requires substantial resources
in the form of interpretive panels and educational staff. It may, however, become protable
in the long term against the current reactive approach relying on regular cleaning patrols.
Whereas indirect approaches may be effective, cheaper and less controversial than direct
ones to solve visitor impacts on PAs (Brown et al., 2010; Chang, 2010), direct visitor
management measures may be the only effective means to prevent inappropriate visitor
behaviour in the absence of adequate educational or interpretive facilities (Chang, 2010).
Whatever strategy or measures are chosen to address visitors impacts on PAs, they should
always consider the specicities and the context of each PA to be effective.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1023
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Javier Martnez Vega for his useful comments on the early drafts of
this paper, and Jos e Manuel Rojo, and Jorge Morales, of the Spanish National Research Council, for
their assistance with data analyses and gure composition.
Note on contributor
David Rodrguez-Rodrguez graduated in Biology from the Complutense University of Madrid and
in Environmental Science from the Autonomous University of Madrid. He was awarded his post-
graduate degree in Conservation Biology by the same university. He also graduated in Environmental
Sciences fromthe Autonomous University of Madrid. He holds an MSc degree in Ecological Restora-
tion from the University of Alcal a de Henares. Currently, he is concluding his PhD thesis on the
integrated assessment of the protected areas of the Region of Madrid at the Institute of Economics,
Geography and Demography of the Spanish National Research Council (IEGD-CSIC).
References
Aramburu, M.P., Escribano, R., Ramos, S., & Rubio, R. (2003). Cartografa del paisaje de la
Comunidad de Madrid [Landscape cartography of the ARM]. Madrid: Consejera de Medio
Ambiente, Comunidad de Madrid.
Barrado, D.A. (1999). Actividades de ocio y recreativas en el medio natural de la Comunidad de
Madrid. La ciudad a la b usqueda de la naturaleza [Leisure activities in the natural environment
of the ARM. The city in search of nature]. Madrid: Consejera de Medio Ambiente, Comunidad
de Madrid.
Brown, T.J., Ham, S.H., & Hughes, M. (2010). Picking up litter: An application of theory-based
communication to inuence tourist behaviour in protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
18(7), 879900.
Buckley, R., Weaver, D.B., & Pickering, C. (Eds). (2003). Nature-based tourism, environment and
land management. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Chang, L.C. (2010). The effects of moral emotions and justications on visitors intention to pick
owers in a forest recreation area in Taiwan. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(1), 137150.
Chape, S., Spalding, M., & Jenkins, M.D. (Eds). (2008). The worlds protected areas. Prepared by the
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Corraliza, J.A., Garca-Navarro, J., & Valero, E. (2002). Los Parques Naturales en Espa na: Conser-
vaci on y disfrute [Natural parks in Spain: Their conservation and enjoyment]. Madrid: Mundi-
Prensa.
De Miguel, J.M., & Daz-Pineda, F. (2003). Medio ambiente. Problemas y posibilidades [Envi-
ronment. Problems and possibilities]. In Garca-Delgado, J.L. (Dir.). Estructura econ omica de
Madrid [Economic structure of Madrid] (2nd ed., pp. 181222). Madrid: Consejera de Justicia
e Innovaci on Tecnol ogica. Comunidad de Madrid.
Diego, C., &Garca-Codron, J.C. (2006). Los espacios naturales protegidos [Protected areas]. Matar o:
Davinci.
Farrell, T.A. (2002). The Protected Area Visitor Impact Management (PAVIM) Framework: A sim-
plied process for making management decisions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10, 3151.
Farrell, T.A. & Marion, J.L. (2001). Identifying and assessing ecotourism visitor impacts at eight
protected areas in Costa Rica and Belize. Environmental Conservation, 28(3), 215225.
G omez-Lim on, J. (Coord). 2002. Los visitantes de la Comarca de Do nana [The visitors to the Do nana
Region]. Huelva: Fundaci on Do nana 21.
G omez-Lim on, J., & Garca-Avil es, J. (1992). Estudio del impacto de las actividades recreativas en
dos cauces uviales del Parque Regional de la Cuenca Alta del Manzanares (

Area de La Pedriza)
[Study on the impact of recreational activities in two rivers of the Cuenca Alta del Manzanares
Regional Park (La Pedriza)], Series document no. 5. Soto del Real: Centro de Investigaci on
Fernando Gonz alez Bern aldez.
G omez-Lim on, J., M ugica, M., Medina, L., & De Lucio, J.V. (1994).

Areas recreativas en la Comu-
nidad de Madrid. Auencia de visitantes y actividades desarrolladas [Picnic areas in the ARM.
Inux of visitors and performed activities], Series document no. 14. Soto del Real: Centro de
Investigaci on Fernando Gonz alez Bern aldez.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3

1024 D. Rodrguez-Rodrguez
G omez-Lim on, J., M ugica, M., Mu noz, C., & De Lucio, J.V. (1996). Uso recreativo de los espa-
cios naturales en Madrid. Frecuentaci on, caracterizaci on de visitantes e impactos ambientales
[Recreational use of protected areas in Madrid. Attendance, visitors characterization and envi-
ronmental impacts], Series document no. 19. Soto del Real: Centro de Investigaci on Fernando
Gonz alez Bern aldez.
Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Grifn, G., & Syme, G. (2001). Tourist perception of environmental
impact. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 853867.
Hunter, C., & Green, H. (1995). Tourism and the environment. A sustainable relationship? London:
Routledge.
Instituto Nacional de Estadstica (INE). 2011. Demografa y poblaci on. Cifras de poblaci on y censos
demogr acos. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_cifraspob.htm
Kaseva, M.E., & Moirana, J.L. (2010). Problems of solid waste management on Mount Kilimanjaro:
A challenge to tourism. Waste Management & Research, 28, 695704.
Leung, Y.F., & Marion, J.L. (1999). Assessing trail conditions in protected areas: Application of
a problem-assessment method in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Environmental
Conservation, 26, 270279.
Liddle, M. (1997). Recreation ecology. London: Chapman & Hall.
Mc Kercher, B., &Weber, K. (2008). Rationalising inappropriate behaviour at contested sites. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 16(4), 369385.
M ugica, M. (1994). Modelo de demanda paisajstica y uso recreativo de los espacios naturales [A
model for landscape demand and recreational use of protected areas], Series document no. 16.
Soto del Real: Centro de Investigaci on Fernando Gonz alez Bern aldez.
Mulero, A. (2002). La protecci on de espacios naturales en Espa na. Antecedentes, contrastes territo-
riales, conictos y perspectivas [The protection of natural areas in Spain. Background, territorial
biases, conicts and prospects]. Madrid: Mundi-Prensa.
Naredo, J.M., & Fras, J. (2005). Desarrollo: La sntesis del desarrollo sostenible con especial
referencia a la Comunidad de Madrid. [Development: The synthesis of sustainable development
referred to the ARM]. In F. S anchez-Herrera (Ed.), Cuartas Jornadas Cientcas del Parque
Natural de Pe nalara y del Valle de El Paular. Conservaci on y desarrollo socioecon omico en
Espacios Naturales Protegidos [Fourth Scientic Meeting of the Pe nalara Natural Park and El
Paular Valley. Conservation and socioeconomic development in protected areas] (pp. 738).
Madrid: Consejera de Medio Ambiente y Ordenaci on del Territorio, Comunidad de Madrid.
Newsome, D., Moore, S. & Dowling, R. (2002). Natural area tourism. Ecology, impacts and man-
agement. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Rodrguez-Rodrguez, D. (2008). Los espacios naturales protegidos de la Comunidad de Madrid.
Principales amenazas para su conservaci on [The protected areas of the ARM. Main threats to
their conservation]. Madrid: Editorial Complutense.
Rodrguez-Rodrguez, D. (2009). Mitigaci on de los impactos del turismo en espacios naturales pro-
tegidos y mejora de su nanciaci on a trav es de medidas econ omicas. El caso de la Comunidad de
Madrid [Mitigation of the impacts fromtourismin protected areas and their nancial enhancement
by economic measures. The case of the ARM]. Boletn de la A.G.E., 50, 217238.
Tisdell, C. (2001). Tourism economics, the environment and development. Analysis and policy. Chel-
tenham: Edward Elgar.
Vacas, A.M. (2006). Sensibilizaci on para la conservaci on del paisaje (I): Recursos culturales y
equipamientos de uso p ublico en la Sierra de Guadarrama (Madrid) [Public awareness for land-
scape conservation (I): cultural resources and public use infrastructure in the Guadarrama moun-
tains (Madrid)], Series document no. 46. Soto del Real: Centro de Investigaci on Fernando
Gonz alez Bern aldez.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
1
4
6
.
8
3
.
2
0
7
.
4
]

a
t

1
4
:
2
2

2
1

M
a
r
c
h

2
0
1
3